Writ of habeas corpus remedy vs excessive and void penalty
DearPAO, My husband was convicted of committing a crime. The court decision already attained finalityand he was in fact already serving his sentence. Several years later from his initial confinement, law took effect, which ultimately reduced the penalty for the crime that he was convicted of. Because of this development, he is now serving an excessive penalty. What can be our remedy for his release from prison?
Joan
Dear Joan,
The answer to your question is found in the provisions of the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 102 thereof, otherwise known as the “Rule on HabeasCorpus.” Pursuant to this rule, it is stated that the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
Elucidating on its application, the Supreme Court in a plethora of cases held that the writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid judgment. However, as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed as a consequence of a judicial proceeding in several instances such as when there is a void penalty due to an excessive penalty.
In the case of GovsDimagiba ( GR 151876, June 21, 2005), penned by Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, the high court stated that the writ of habeas corpus is an available post-conviction remedy in the following instances, viz:
“The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid judgment. However, as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess.” (Emphasis supplied)
Similarly, in the case of Harden vs The Director of Prisons( GR L-2349 Oct. 22, 1948), written by Associate Justice Pedro Tuason, it was held that the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued when there is an excessive penalty, to wit:
“The grounds for relief by habeas corpus are only (1) deprivation of any fundamental or constitutional rights, (2) lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the sentence, or (3) excessive penalty.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in light of the cited rules and supporting jurisprudence, the applicable remedy that can be applied in your husband’s excessive confinement is a petition for habeas corpus. This is because when your husband already served his penalty, any time spent in excess of what is mandated of him to serve is without any basis anymore. In this situation, the petition for habeas corpus would be in the nature of a collateral attack against a final and executory judgement, which is sanctioned by the rules and jurisprudence.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.